Here’s the “Apology” from CSA Steering Committee Chair Ron Seymour

CSA Interim Steering Committee (CCTC) Chair Ron Seymour says he’s sorry for comments he made recently regarding the Holocaust. I am certainly not a member of the CSA but I am a big fan of Mr. Seymour’s blog and I’m personally relieved to know that he apologized. It’s disappointing, however, that he didn’t go further and admit that, in fact, he’s not always a fan of my blog on behalf of the CSA and has distanced himself from my assertion that he gave us only a one percent chance of success. That’s not exactly what I stated. He did say, however, that he’s been burned with our opposition to illegal gold recovery in May 2017, an argument I respectfully disagree with and apologize for, although I do wish him luck in finding a position that both sakes his principles and backs his argument.

Here is the apology (I’ve added a colorful quote):

A thoughtful comment about the Holocaust caused me some embarrassment recently. I greatly regret how this error might have put into the minds of people who might not otherwise be aware of my views.

Mr. Seymour was reacting to an article by high profile “Ex-Nazi” Heinrich Boll, the “ex-commandant” of the Zyklon B factory in occupied Poland. In October of this year Boll published his autobiography, “Ingenious Guts”. The subtitle of this book is “war to come: how I did my part in the Holocaust.” Broll reports writing in the desert that “I was happy to have taken part in the Destruction of the Soviet Union and the subsequent Red Terror”, and that, “I am proud to have delivered over a million inhabitants of German towns into the hands of the Proletarian Red Army”.

In his book Boll also reveals he worked alongside – not inside – an SS guard nicknamed “Blood and Fire.”

The quote that I objected to was from Boll’s sister, Madeline Kern, who said she wants to meet the Hitler Youth battalion that “kept us safe when he attacked Russia.” As a Jewish person and survivor of a concentration camp, I profoundly feel a deep need to respond to this statement. I cannot begin to forgive what happened to those who lived under the Third Reich. My nieces and nephews, the grandchildren of people who survived the Lodz Ghetto and Auschwitz-Birkenau, are a part of my life and experience of the Jewish tragedy. Their inevitable political differences and their “fears” of a literal attack on Israel make them completely irrelevant in my personal experience with the Holocaust. We must, as a civilization, recognize and act to prevent future Holocausts.

Any notion that my position on the Gold Fleet could be put into the minds of people who, by and large, would never read my blog and thus wouldn’t have even a chance to judge for themselves falls far short of the truth. A 25-year old Cologne student read one of my posts as, “anyone would probably understand” that finding German gold would have been an impossible task, especially if they were sent to the US (that is what the German Navy’s policy was). She found out that I am anti-Gold Fleet and never saw a comment that I supported the practice.

My personal line in the sand on the Gold Fleet came in 2010 when I wrote “Exactly one percent of the remaining fragments of gold belonging to Jewish Holocaust victims are in the possession of American museums. Why does the CSA (US based) still want to take over the Nazi gold task force and I’m afraid so is the US Administration”. I can see where some people might think that post made me and the CSA insensitive. However, I made clear that that was not my view at all and that mine was a desire to preserve the memories of those affected by the Nazi holocaust.

My position on the Gold Fleet is as clear as crystal – 100 percent of the remaining inventory should go to the museums in the US and the rest to the Holocaust Compensation Trust in Germany. The contemporary view that “Junk” should remain at US hands perpetuates the Western lie that there was anything to the Holocaust.


Inexpensive internet access is good — in the U.K.

Screenshot by Adam Satariano/CNET

Free Internet is a big deal in much of the world.

In many countries, it’s not even possible to access the web without paying for a subscription. In the United States, however, all you need to subscribe to a broadband Internet service is a regular TV service. In other words, the world does have more Internet — and rich people have more Internet.

Now, the government of the United Kingdom is proposing a new plan to fix this situation. That’s a shame. But there’s no need to worry about what the U.K. might be doing to Internet access in the next decade.

What the U.K. is proposing is a social program that would give free, bundled internet access to households that are eligible for the National Health Service (NHS). The idea of providing this type of subsidized access in the U.K. is not a new one. It’s actually been tried in other countries with far less success. In fact, a similar British plan was almost entirely a waste of time.

Now playing: Watch this: This device gives you 10 hours of internet a day for just…

Well, at least you could get an hour of internet if you wanted it.

Pioneered in Britain in 2010, the “My Choice” project was supposed to get millions of people connected. The plan was so simple: people could sign up for an “Internet Share Pack” for just a few pounds (US$5, £4.50) a month. After that, they’d be able to access online resources through NHS sites and educational sites.

But it backfired in spectacular fashion.

The Guardian reported the plans’ dismal failure in May 2015, in a series of articles that detailed the confusing policy; the nearly worthless cost of the scheme; and the fact that many people simply never signed up at all. A working group was supposed to meet to propose changes to the scheme, but no one showed up.

Not many people ended up signing up for the program either. Research firm Kantar Worldpanel Consulting reported that the only way to qualify for the pack was if you lived in a slightly wealthier, generally English neighbourhood. The way the data gathered about households was used to calculate eligibility was also arbitrary, with total household income not counting government benefits such as housing. And it’s unclear if information gathered about children was legally secure, or if they had to be less than 13 years old to qualify.

And in the UK, it wasn’t even a policy that people were signing up for. People could sign up for it, but they had to sign up for a regular Internet service that they had to pay for in order to get the free internet access. Then, people got annoyed when they found they were barely getting any use out of the package — even though they were told it included easy access to doctors, leisure facilities and educational resources. is making a major bet on AI and data. It’s also funding sci-fi projects that dream of a better world. See our story about:

In January 2015, most of the companies mentioned in the Guardian’s series of stories (like Freeserve, Sky, Tiscali and Virgin Media) stopped offering packages of basic internet access. The project was shut down by the NHS a few months later.

The internet in the U.K. remains a wildly unequal place. That’s why it’s so important that there is a well-connected Internet. The internet was the global internet before broadband became a thing. People in developing countries still can’t use the internet without going through a complicated and complicated process, and it still costs less money in many parts of the world to buy a smartphone than it does to afford an Internet service.

That’s not to say the U.K. plan is guaranteed to fail. On the contrary, it may end up working if it can implement an alternative version of the program that makes it easier for poorer people to access the Internet and provide education and health benefits. The overall goal of the program should be to end the divide between the haves and have-nots in the digital world. If you believe that, then it’s worth putting the costs of this social program aside and recognizing that the internet is a global common good that everyone deserves access to.

Technically Literate: Original works of short fiction with unique perspectives on tech, exclusively on CNET.

Crowd Control: A crowdsourced science fiction novel written by CNET readers.


Wireless carriers seek to offer customers free internet if they switch to 5G

Major cellphone carriers plan to offer their customers free internet for four years if they ditch their old, slower wireless connections.

The carriers want to use that in a new program to try to entice customers to buy devices that run their newer, faster 5G internet services.

The plan comes as the five largest mobile networks are vying for dominance over 5G, an next-generation wireless service due to start rolling out starting next year, when regulators gave the networks the green light to do so. The big companies are already stocking stores with 5G phones and other gear designed to supercharge existing wireless networks. But one of the main attractions of buying phones and a device called a home hub is that they will be capable of running in the forthcoming 5G networks.

Yet the superfast 5G wireless networks are more than six years away, at the earliest.

They require much more spectrum — or airwaves — than traditional 4G networks. And so right now the rules are stacked against carriers using 5G to sell the next-generation internet service. For one thing, carriers are still figuring out which airwaves will be in demand and how much bandwidth they can actually offer. And even if they figure out the economics, they’re still bringing new devices to market — which is more of a problem in the U.S. and Europe.

The carriers are proposing a program that lets consumers still get 5G but not pay for data anymore. But they don’t tell customers what network service they’ll actually get when they buy a 5G device and without a contract.

The new 5G service would use the current 4G LTE network as a backup. That means the customer isn’t going to get super-fast 4G or 5G speeds, just the ability to stream video in one service, theoretically, and talk and text in the other. In Britain, carriers plan to offer free internet for four years. The program would offer free internet to consumers with 4G coverage or coverage similar to that of 3G or old-fashioned 2G.

The carriers would then tell customers if their old service has been converted to the faster 5G network and if the network they’re on is one of the ones that will be upgraded to 5G. Because it would work on the 4G network, those who don’t have LTE coverage would still get access to faster speeds when they move to 5G. A customer’s speeds could vary, depending on their location.

So the carriers would install both 5G and 4G equipment to their existing network equipment so customers don’t experience different network speeds or when they switch networks.

T-Mobile, the fourth largest wireless carrier in the U.S., plans to start the new service in 2019 with a “5G Essentials” plan that would include free internet access, but make other services, like mobile TV and mobile texting, available at a cost. The company has already been doing this in parts of the U.S. for a few years.

Another carrier is expected to launch its plans soon, but has not revealed its name. It is owned by Franco-American Orange SA and is now called 3 Group. Its 5G service will be based on existing 4G LTE equipment installed on the 4G network.

AT&T has unveiled plans to launch its 5G plans by the end of 2019, while Verizon plans to launch its 5G service by the end of 2020. Sprint, which is majority owned by Japan’s SoftBank, plans to launch a similar service by 2020.

The carriers have been testing this new service for several years in the U.S. while the broader industry has been waiting for a green light from the FCC. The FCC is expected to approve the new service, making it possible to offer the service at home to consumers who already own a smartphone and are not on contract.

The proposal would also let wireless providers resell their own 5G service, which could attract customers who would go with a new company over the older one. But that would require the FCC to further loosen the rules — something the FCC has not proposed doing in any other country.